RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:58:06 +0800
> > no compiler yet. the nodes would be nothing, be other arrows, or be
> > groups of arrows (read 'be' as 'point to'). no code, as yet, would be
> Don't confuse syntax with semantics. There has to be a clear distinction.
> That is, the meaning of an arrow is DIFFERENT from its use in making
> connections between other arrows. Yes, technically the arrow's meaning is
> a pointer to some other arrows or whatever, but this "pointer" is not the
> same as the pointer the arrow is denoting by its instance in the current
> > generated until complete reflection is achieved. this entire
> > development is centered around building a population of data-structures
> > from which can be read logical meaning. in other words, these
> > data-structures would form a reasoning system (interpreted by the
> > underlying c-program at first, that is.)
> The logical meaning is interpreted by the C code, and gradually is added
> into the system, is that what you are thinking?
Yes, with the idea of introducing new contexts dynamically being the
ultimate goal, so that assumed meaning _can_ be attached to certain
arrow-structures without a loss of reversibility (of context-reification).
There's more to this, but it doesn't come to mind right now, so I'll get
back to it later.